Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

• In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Others Vs. Mandala Ramulamma and Others 1:
"Section 38-E contemplates that on grant of certificate of ownership under Section 38-E, the protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such land. Further, Explanation provided under Section 38-E(1) provides that if a protected tenant has been dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by the order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, then notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal shall be deemed to be holding the land on the date of notification. The Tahsildar is under an obligation to either suo motu or in furtherance of an application by the protected tenant, to hold a summary enquiry and direct taking of land in possession of the landholder or any other 2021 SCC OnLine SC 851 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 person claiming through or under him. The possession from a protected tenant can be taken only if the surrender of tenancy is approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The landowner is liable to restore possession in terms of Section 46 of the Act if he has failed to cultivate the land personally within one year. Therefore, there is an embargo on the surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant and even if the tenancy is terminated, the landholder is personally liable to restore possession to the tenant, if he fails to cultivate the land within one year of termination of tenancy. The order of the learned Single Bench in Jupudi Bhushanam [Jupudi Bhushanam v. Collector, Khammam, 1996 SCC OnLine AP 941] is to the effect that once certificate under Section 38-E is granted, and subsequently he has been dispossessed, he has the right to seek remedy from the civil court. The High Court has failed to notice that the Explanation in sub-section (1) of Section SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 38-E of the Tenancy Act specifically provides that if a protected tenant, on account of his being dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 32, is not in possession of the land on the date of the notification issued under sub-section (1), then, the Tahsildar shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 32, either suo motu or on the application of the protected tenant hold a summary enquiry, and direct that such land in possession of the landholder or any person claiming through or under him in that area, shall be taken from such possession thereof and shall be restored to the protected tenant."

• Potta Nagabhushanam and Others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District and Others 7:

"To sum up, under the scheme of the Act, a protected tenant is entitled to be declared as owner of the land. When he is not in possession, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or any Revenue Tribunal, the law presumes the protected tenant to be in possession of the land and when once a certificate is MANU/AP/0746/2000 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 issued under Section 38-E of the Act, it shall be lawful for the Tahsildar to restore physical possession to the protected tenant (holder of the certificate), as, such certificate holder is entitled to possession of the land covered by the certificate. In this background, Section 32 may be examined."

2015(4) ALD 490 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 • Chinnaboini Narsaiah Vs. Tahsildar 10 "If was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the power to restore possession to a protected tenant out of possession can be exercised by the Tahsildar under the explanation to sub- sec. (1) of Sec. 38-E of the Act only when the protected tenant is dispossessed. The contention is that there may be cases of surrender of possession or voluntary abandonment of possession by the protected tenant and in such events possession cannot be restored to the protected tenant. The express language of the Explanation itself is that possession can be restored by a summary enquiry in favour of a tenant who is dispossessed. Obviously, that power cannot be exercised in favour of a tenant or protected tenant who voluntarily surrenders his possession or who has abandoned the possession. The question whether a protected tenant was dispossessed or abandoned possession voluntarily is, however, a 1978 (2) (hc) SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 question of fact. Suffice it to say, that the restoration of possession could only be in favour of a protected tenant who is dispossessed in contravention of Sec. 32 of the Act and not one who has surrendered or abandoned possession.

24. Keeping in mind the factual matrix and having considered the legal position as stated above, it is noted that in these cases the primary point to be decided is whether the Tahsildar is having power to restore the possession after dispossession of the protected tenants from the land. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the legal position of Section 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act provides a framework for protected tenants to seek restoration of possession. This provision allows tenants to apply to the Tahsildar for possession, ensuring that landlords cannot obtain possession without following the due process of law. The Tahsildar is required to conduct an inquiry and pass an order that is deemed fit. This process ensures that the rights of both the tenant and the landlord are protected. However, in the present case, the protected tenant's application for restoration of possession was made after a significant delay. Further, in these cases, admittedly, the possession was delivered to the protected SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 tenant after issuance of 38E certificate and the same is mentioned in the counter filed by the respondent when the landlord challenged the Section 38E proceedings. Once the Section 38E certificate was issued and possession was delivered, he is no more the protected tenant and he is the owner. Further, when he is not the tenant of the land, there is no question of applying the tenancy laws. Therefore, the Tahsildar, is not having the power to deal with the matter as the same does not come under the tenancy laws.